The new head of the SNC, Abdulbaset Sieda – a Kurd from Sweden, where he is in a “voluntary emigration” (quote Sieda) since 1996 – has immediately as the head of the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), based in Istanbul, to begun to justify the deep confidence of the SNC in him, and so he has already published, in this manner, a number of big statements.
Unfortunately, these statements from the new head of the “Syrian National Council” (SNC) in Turkey are mutually exclusive. It is therefore relatively difficult to determine what the new head of the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), Abdulbaset Sieda, really wanted to tell the world with these statements.
It was noticeable that a Kurd (Abdulbaset Sieda) and a Christian (George Sabra) as the successor of Burhan Ghalioun were up for election, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which dominates the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), seem to take a backseat.
For the Muslim Brotherhood, it has a certain tradition to act from the second row out in order to manipulate the forefront accordingly.
In contrast to the rather inconspicuous Sabra and Sieda, the Muslim Brotherhood enjoys an indeed wide support from their co-religionists in the Middle East (SN: and even in Europe and America).
The deployment of Sieda is thus a tactical maneuver in order to mobilize the Kurds in Syria – which have so far sticked to the attitude of “at the drop of a hat” and they have in general bided to see the further development of events.
One cannot say about the Sunnis of Syria, nor even the Turks, Iraqis, Iranians or about anyone else, that they would really welcome a Kurd as the new head of the “Syrian National Council” (SNC).
No one needs to have an independent Kurdistan in its Syrian incarnation. No one really knows, what to do with the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq, and here, one would even risk another autonomy in Syria.
The Kurdish areas in Syria are currently under strict control of Kurdish militias in consultation and coordination with the Syrian security forces. The FSA has no access there. In order to unnerve the Kurdish army completely, the “Syrian National Council” (SNC) needs another source of unrest in the country. Perhaps the deployment of Sieda is there to boost the possibilities of a rebellion in the Syrian Kurdistan.
Despite this effort, the Kurds do not really know much about Sieda and, in general, he is not very popular.
He’s actually been a stranger. He has no influence in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known as PKK), which in reality, in many respects, controls the Kurdish enclave in Syria. But it seems that this attempt was worth it, at least, for the “Syrian National Council” (SNC) and its allies, some would even say operators, in the Gulf States and the West.
The first statement of Abdulbaset Sieda was that the government of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad lies in the “last throes”:
We have entered a delicate phase. The regime is in its death throes. The increasingly frequent causes of massacres of civilians and of artillery shelling clearly show that the regime is in trouble.
Illogically, he started right away to implore the UN Security Council (UNSC), that this Council should pass a Resolution that would allow it to bomb out the “bloody regime”, to attack it with missiles, and to blow it up:
The situation in Syria is so devastating that it threatens the stability of the entire region. We call upon the international community to act in the interests of the Syrian people, it is not us, who call for a military intervention, but the present rulers in Syria force the world into action. The scorched earth policy, which is followed by the current regime, will lead to a military operation.
One the one hand, there is the demand of an implicit military intervention, on the other hand, it is said that the Syrian regime is in the last days of its existence? What sense does it make do demand an implicit military intervention if the regime has joined the last days of its existence?
Apparently, the Syrian regime is still quite stable and has no interests to give up within the next few days or months.
In general, the new constantly published and heard mantras about a civil war in Syria are hardly convincing. At least so far for that is really not the case. A civil war is going, according to his nature, through the whole society, but this kind of the nature of a civil war cannot be observed in Syria at the moment.
The Syrian army – as part of this society – is not divided in “red” and “white”, the same applies to the power apparatus in Syria. That would be the most important signs of a civil war. When there are no groups which argue among themselves with the power elite groups, that fight each other to the death, it is nonsensical to speak of a civil war.
An example from the history: “Pugachev’s Rebellion” (or the Cossack Rebellion) was not really a civil war, although it had enormous proportions, but the ruling elite was united, and not cleaved.
The attempt of Pugachev to appear as Tsar Peter III. (He had miraculously survived the assassination of his wife), was precisely the attempt to divide this elite, but it has not succeeded.
There is no evidence for a civil war in Syria; and journalists should stick to the general definitions instead of misusing words for propaganda purposes and headlines (e.g. for Google News and in order to emotionally influence the readers). But in Syria, there are signs of turmoil and a massive intervention from abroad, but this is something completely different than a civil war.
In this respect, the first of the above-cited statements of the old Swede Sieda, is an outright lie.
The accent of his message is therefore in the second quote – in the demand for a military intervention in Syria. Without such a help by their Western allies (NATO, UN, U.S.) and the Wahhabi guys from the Gulf and the warmongers out of Israel, the “rebels” have no chance at all.
Based on: apxwn.blogspot.de